The question
Whether clearly established federal law barred the introduction of highly prejudicial evidence that rendered a capital defendant's trial fundamentally unfair.
Andrew v. White
What the Court decided
The Court held that clearly established federal law forbids introducing evidence so unfairly prejudicial that it makes a trial fundamentally unfair, and that this principle applied to the defendant's case. It vacated the lower court's contrary decision and sent the case back for further review under the correct standard.
How the justices split
UnanimousPer curiam (unsigned)
Delivered by the Court
The Due Process Clause has long forbidden evidence so unduly prejudicial that it renders a trial fundamentally unfair, and that rule was clearly established federal law. The lower court was wrong to conclude otherwise, so its decision is vacated and the case returns for review under the proper standard.
How we know · 2 sourced claims
The Court held clearly established federal law forbids evidence so prejudicial it renders a trial fundamentally unfair.
Source: syllabus, Held, at 23-6573
The lower court's contrary decision was vacated and remanded.
Source: syllabus